Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. It does away with the very purpose of this legislation before us, and that is to give the President credibility at the negotiating table and to have a process by which Congress will consider the results of negotiation. So it strikes at the disapproval resolution process. This amendment adds language, then, directing the procedural disapproval resolutions be referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. The effect of the amendment on trade promotion authority is threefold.

Mr. GRASSLEY. First, it wrests control over consideration of procedural disapproval resolutions from the Finance Committee and gives it to the Committee on Rules and Administration; second, to make procedural disapproval resolutions open for debate with automatic discharge from committee of jurisdiction; third, to provide for an unlimited number of procedural disapproval resolutions to be considered during any given session of Congress. The intent is clear. It is an attempt to weaken trade promotion authority and create multiple and unlimited opportunities to derail trade promotion authority procedures during any given session of Congress. If the amendment is agreed to, a single Senator can put forward a resolution which would stop a particular trade negotiation in its tracks. We all know there are some Senators who do not like trade promotion authority and do not even like international trade. Should this amendment be agreed to, you can be assured that the Senate will be considering multiple procedural disapproval resolutions during any Congress. Let us be clear. This amendment is designed to weaken trade promotion authority procedures, procedures which have effectively worked for over 50 years in advancing international trade interests. It really comes down to this: Either you believe in the proven effectiveness of the trade promotion authority procedures or you do not. If you do, then I strongly urge you to oppose this clever yet potentially devastating amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. And what troubles me most about the amendment is that it unnecessarily carves out privatization of particular service sectors from negotiations. These service categories include national security, Social Security, public health and safety, and education, as well as other significant public services. This language is so broad that it could be used by our trading partners to close off market access to U.S. service exports. This situation could be especially troublesome in the telecommunications sector where many of our trading partners maintain government-owned telecom companies. Including this language, which is very sweeping, in the trade promotion authority bill could severely undermine our ability to open these markets. That is why I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Opportunity is the greatest of human rights anywhere in the world. Trade is all about opportunity, so this whole bill is all about human rights. This amendment upsets a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise dealing with these complex relationships between international trade, workers' rights, and the environment, and it does so by undermining the fundamental purpose and proven effectiveness of our trade promotion authority. This amendment offers vague new standards stating that the countries should strive to protect ``internationally recognized civil, political, and human rights,'' without even defining those rights. It sets our negotiators up for failure and jeopardizes this bill. If we really want to promote democracy and human rights abroad, then we should all oppose this amendment and pass the bill because history shows that time and again open markets help foster a more open political system and the human rights that go with it. Mexico is an example. There is Taiwan and South Korea, all sorts of examples of human rights being better today than they were 50 years ago, all because of more open markets and international trade. I yield back my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I have the list in front of me. As I recall discussions of this list, I don't remember anything that has any appropriations in it whatsoever and it is not our intent to appropriate money in these amendments.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments and I agree completely with them that the definition of perishable and cyclical agricultural products includes livestock and meat production. It is clear to me that there can be no other reading of the legislation and I believe that our colleagues intended for these products to be covered. We expect our negotiators, to include these products under these provisions.

Mr. GRASSLEY. As the Senator knows, I support the trade adjustment assistance program, and recognize that--beyond some individual companies and workers--there are also particular industries that face dislocation as a result of trade. The recent finding by the International Trade Commission regarding the steel industry further emphasizes this point. In that vein, there appears to be a need for further coordination between ITC determinations and Federal assistance given to workers impacted by trade.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree there needs to be a stronger tie between ITC findings and worker assistance--specifically Trade Adjustment Assistance. It is my understanding that the ITC is currently required to notify the Secretary of Labor of any affirmative injury determination, and that the Secretary must give expedited consideration to petitions for TAA certification by workers in the domestic industry.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am also pleased that we were able to come to agreement on a bipartisan trade package. It was the right thing to do for our nation's farmers, workers, and companies.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this legislation which has passed the Senate today is a great bipartisan success. I am thankful to my colleagues for their support and willingness to work together in order to do this for the workers, farmers and companies of this country. I would first like to thank Senators Gramm and Breaux and their staff for helping to make this final vote possible. If it were not for their help in brokering a deal, we may not have reached this point today. I would also like to thank Senator Baucus and his excellent staff for all the hard work and dedication which has gone into this bill over the past year. I want to specifically thank Mike Evans and John Angell as well as the trade staff--Greg Mastel, Tim Punke, Ted Posner, Angela Marshall-Hoffman, Shara Aranoff, and Andy Harig. I appreciate their willingness to work with my staff to accomplish so much. I would also like to thank Polly Craighill of the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, for her hard work, and great expertise in drafting this bill. Finally, I would like to thank my staff, beginning with my Finance Committee staff director, Kolan Davis and my trade counsels Everett Eissenstat and Richard Chriss, who have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to fruition. I credit them with much of today's success. It was their hard work, along with the help of Carrie Clark and Tiffany McCullen-Atwell, that helped us to this point. I look forward to a productive conference, and swift passage of the conference report, so we can get this to the President's desk, and enacted into law.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry and Torricelli, to accomplish two objectives related to defined benefit pension plans. First, my bill will permit defined benefit plans to use an appropriate adjusted interest rate for purposes of calculating contributions to their plan due for plan year 2001. We made this change in the economic stimulus bill that passed earlier this year for the years 2002 and 2003, but failed to pick up the 2001 plan year. My colleagues may think that such a change should have been made a year ago. Defined benefit pension plan contributions for 2001 are due in most cases, 8\1/2\ months after the close of the plan year. By that measure, this change is still timely. I would also draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that this adjustment is necessary to correct for the very low 30-year Treasury bond rates that have resulted from the buy-back and discontinuation of these bonds. It is also important to note that this change will not affect the way in which pension payouts are made to participants. It will simply affect contributions to plans and premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation by plan sponsors. Second, the bill would make permanent a special rule for certain interstate bus lines that was put in place in the 1997 tax bill. That rule allows interstate bus lines with frozen pension plans to use generally applicable ERISA funding rules for their plan, rather than those mandated by the pension the GATT which were enacted in 1994. The change we make for interstate bus lines with frozen defined benefit plans is unique to this group. Generally the GATT made useful changes to pension law that made plans more secure for participants. The use of standardized interest rates and mortality tables has helped establish a baseline so that plan sponsors understand our expectations of how they must fund their plans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill, along with a letter of support from the Amalgamated Transit Union, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry and Torricelli, to accomplish two objectives related to defined benefit pension plans. First, my bill will permit defined benefit plans to use an appropriate adjusted interest rate for purposes of calculating contributions to their plan due for plan year 2001. We made this change in the economic stimulus bill that passed earlier this year for the years 2002 and 2003, but failed to pick up the 2001 plan year. My colleagues may think that such a change should have been made a year ago. Defined benefit pension plan contributions for 2001 are due in most cases, 8\1/2\ months after the close of the plan year. By that measure, this change is still timely. I would also draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that this adjustment is necessary to correct for the very low 30-year Treasury bond rates that have resulted from the buy-back and discontinuation of these bonds. It is also important to note that this change will not affect the way in which pension payouts are made to participants. It will simply affect contributions to plans and premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation by plan sponsors. Second, the bill would make permanent a special rule for certain interstate bus lines that was put in place in the 1997 tax bill. That rule allows interstate bus lines with frozen pension plans to use generally applicable ERISA funding rules for their plan, rather than those mandated by the pension the GATT which were enacted in 1994. The change we make for interstate bus lines with frozen defined benefit plans is unique to this group. Generally the GATT made useful changes to pension law that made plans more secure for participants. The use of standardized interest rates and mortality tables has helped establish a baseline so that plan sponsors understand our expectations of how they must fund their plans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill, along with a letter of support from the Amalgamated Transit Union, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send a further modification of my amendment to the desk. The purpose of the modification is to make some changes to satisfy the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Three?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move adoption of the amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, with today's vote on cloture on the trade bill, we move one step closer to reestablishing the United States global leadership and credibility in trade. We move one step closer to being better able to advance this country's economic interests in this hemisphere. And we will be one step closer to bringing greater economic prosperity to every American family. That is because with today's vote, the President will be one step closer to getting one of the most important tools he needs to strengthen the American economy, and to create new American jobs. American leadership in trade has floundered for the last several years. We have seen over 130 preferential trade agreements signed by our trading partners in the last few years, none of which included the United States. This proliferation of preferential trade agreements among other nations--including major U.S. trading partners such as Canada and Mexico--is harmful to U.S. trade interests. These agreements provide their members with preferential access to one another's markets--while disadvantaging American agricultural products, manufactured goods, and many services. Some American companies overcome these barriers by producing overseas. Many small- and medium-sized companies can't do this however, and because they are less competitive, they lose opportunity after opportunity to their foreign counterparts. This loss of competitive ability by our export-dependent firms, as well as our farmers, means fewer jobs. It means lost wages or income. It means that hard-working American families aren't able to pay the mortgage, or the farm loan, or provide better education or other opportunities for their children. Today, as we speak, the United States is engaged in new global trade negotiations in the WTO. We played a central role in launching these negotiations. Last year, we helped draft a Ministerial Declaration--a roadmap for the new round of trade talks--that contained nearly every one of our priority negotiating objectives, particularly in agriculture. As a result, we are poised to win unprecedented new market access for American agricultural products around the world. In my State of Iowa, we know how important trade is to the family farmer. We export more than $1 billion worth of everything we grow or produce on the farm, accounting for more than one-third of total Iowa exports to the world. Our farmers, our pork producers, our soybean growers all depend on the income they earn from exporting to take care of their families and their communities. And the plain fact is, they would have more export-related income if world agricultural tariffs were lower, and other trade barriers were reduced. Restored United States leadership in free trade will benefit other as well. An aggressive, American-led effort to open world markets will mean more jobs for our highly competitive manufacturing sector. At the John Deere plant in Waterloo, IA, for example, one out of every five tractors built in the plant is exported, accounting for over 800 export-related jobs. If we gain access to more overseas markets through lower tariffs, we could sell a lot more of these tractors and create more jobs. Our service sector, which provides nearly 8 out of every 10 jobs in the United States, is even more reliant on open world markets. Because we are so competitive internationally, we have an $83 billion trade surplus in services. Liberalization of trade in services is only 5 years old. The potential to build even more American export growth in services is tremendous. TPA will help us realize this potential. With today's historic vote, America's days on the sidelines are numbered. America is almost back in the game. I want to commend Senator Baucus and his staff for all they have done in moving this bill forward, and for working on a bipartisan basis to help restore America's leadership in world trade. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on cloture. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the White House.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on the eve of President Bush's European visit, it is appropriate to point out how attitudes have changed regarding the President's actions with respect to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. A little more than a year ago there was widespread concern over President Bush's decision to withdraw the United States from the ABM treaty. Recently there has been a general change of mind. It appears that many of Bush's biggest critics incorrectly guessed Russian President Vladimir Putin's reaction. Instead of renewing cold war tensions by increasing nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia have continued to strengthen their friendship. I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of an article in today's Washington Post that underscores President Bush's foresight in dealing with Russia and the ABM treaty.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to this amendment, for two reasons. First, the amendment would disrupt the bipartisan balance we achieved in the Finance Committee on Trade Promotion Authority. Republicans and Democrats looked carefully at all the issues, especially the issues relating to Congressional notification and consultation, and approved a bill that, overall, goes farther in terms of congressional oversight and consultation than we have ever gone in fast-rack legislation. The second reason I oppose this amendment is that it would essentially strip the Finance Committee of much of its traditional authority and jurisdiction over the trade policy oversight function. According to this proposed provision, none of the proposed eight members of the Congressional Oversight Group may be members of the Senate Finance Committee. Under this amendment, more than twenty percent of the Senate would be shut out from direct oversight of how trade negotiations subject to fast-track procedures are being conducted. In that regard, this is a very radical amendment. It strikes me as extremely unusual, to say the very least, that the Finance Committee, which wrote and passed the bipartisan trade promotion authority bill in the first place, would be given almost no role whatever in the oversight process once trade promotion authority becomes law. I say almost no role, because some Finance Committee members--those few who are congressional advisers for trade policy--would apparently have some limited role, in that the cochairmen of the Congressional Oversight Group are required to meet with them ``regularly''. Mr. President, this is not the way that oversight of trade policy should be conducted. I don't believe that any member of a Senate Committee--especially the Finance Committee--should be automatically excluded from the entity that the Senate establishes to review and monitor trade negotiations. But that is exactly what this amendment does. Do the proponents of this amendment mean that we can't trust Members of the Finance Committee to do the job the jurisdiction of their committee confers on them? It appears that is exactly what this means. This is not just bad policy. Specifically excluding Senators from serving in any oversight capacity would also set a terrible precedent. The congressional oversight process that Senator Baucus and I designed in the bipartisan trade promotion authority bill is a good one, and it should be preserved. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, hopefully, tomorrow, after a few rollcall votes on a few remaining amendments, we are going to have an opportunity to pass this bipartisan trade promotion authority act of 2002. I would like to address the issue of the bill for a few minutes while we are waiting for final action by the Senate on how we proceed tomorrow. This bill provides the President with the flexibility he needs to negotiate strong international trade agreements on behalf of U.S. workers and farmers while maintaining Congress's constitutional role over U.S. trade policy. It represents a thoughtful approach to addressing the complex relationships between international trade, workers' rights, and the environment, without undermining the fundamental purpose and proven effectiveness of trade promotion authority procedures. Specifically, this bipartisan act gives the administration the authority to negotiate and bring back trade agreements to Congress that will eliminate and reduce trade barriers relating to manufacturing, services, agriculture, intellectual property, investment, and e- commerce. The legislation supports eliminating subsidies that decrease market opportunities for U.S. agriculture or unfairly distort markets to the detriment of the United States, with special emphasis on biotechnology, ending unjustified barriers not based on sound science, and fair treatment for import-sensitive agriculture. The legislation preserves U.S. sovereignty while engaging new trade agreements that will create solid economic growth, improve efficiency and innovation, create better, high-paying jobs for hard-working Americans that on average pay 15 percent above the average wage, and increases the availability of attractively priced products into the U.S. market for the benefit of our consumers. The legislation adds a trade negotiating objective on labor and the environment--very important provisions for many Members of this body. This is done to ensure that a party to a trade agreement does not fail to effectively enforce its labor and environmental laws through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, recognizing a government retains certain discretion. It strengthens, under the labor and environmental provisions, the capacity to promote respect for core labor standards and to protect the environment, to reduce or eliminate government practices or policies that unduly threaten sustainable development, and it seeks market access for U.S. environmental technologies, goods, and services. The legislation adds a new negotiating objective on enforcement, giving labor and environment disputes covered by the agreement parity with other issues in the trade agreement. It sets forth other Presidential priorities not covered by trade promotion authority, including greater cooperation between the World Trade Organization on the one hand, and the International Labor Organization on the other hand, and consultative mechanisms among parties to trade agreements to strengthen the capacity of U.S. trading partners to promote respect for core labor standards and the environment, technical assistance on labor issues, and reporting on the child labor laws of U.S. trading partners. The legislation directs the President to take into account legitimate health, safety, essential security, and consumer interests. It directs the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to preserve our ability to enforce vigorously U.S. trade remedy laws and avoid agreements which lessen the effectiveness of U.S. antidumping or countervailing duty laws. The legislation contains negotiating objectives on investment to increase transparency for the dispute settlement process, calls for standards of expropriation and compensation that are consistent with U.S. legal principles and practice, and eliminates frivolous claims. The bill expands and improves consultations between the administration and Congress before, during, and after trade negotiations and particularly in the development of implementing legislation. The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Assistance Act provides trade promotion authority until June 1, 2005, with a possibility of a 2-year extension. I point this out because there is a misunderstanding that Congress is going to give all of its power to the President. We have the consultation I talked about. Most importantly, whatever is agreed to by the President has to be passed by Congress as a law before any agreement can become effective. But we also do not give this power away to the President forever. This is the year 2002, almost June 1. So we are talking about the next 3 years with the possibility of a 2-year extension. I happen to believe we ought to have standing trade negotiation authority for the President, and we should not have these lapses that we have had since 1994, but obviously the extent to which we give it for shorter periods of time ought to satisfy more Members of this body that we are not giving up our congressional power, which is a specific grant in our Constitution that Congress shall regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act also contains unprecedented procedures that ensure prompt, meaningful, and extensive consultations with the Congress throughout the negotiating process. In other words, Members of this body and the other body are going to have ample opportunity while the President is doing all this negotiating to have reports given to us, feedback and, obviously, if Congress has to pass a final product, the President, in negotiating a position for the United States, is going to have to take into consideration the views of Members of Congress if the President wants to reach an agreement that will eventually pass by a majority vote in both the House and Senate. In regard to this negotiation process and consultation therein, the bill establishes a congressional oversight group which is a broad- based, bipartisan, and permanent institution to be accredited as though official advisers to the U.S. delegation to consult with the U.S. Trade Representative and provide advice regarding formulation of specific objectives, negotiation strategies and positions, and development of the final trade agreement. This congressional oversight group would maximize bipartisanship and input from Members from a broad range of committees comprising the chairman and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, three additional committee members, and also the chairman and ranking member, and their designees, of each committee with a jurisdiction over any law affected by trade agreements being negotiated. The Bipartisan Trade Promotion Assistance Act also requires development of a written plan by the U.S. Trade Representative for consulting with Congress throughout the negotiations. That plan must include provisions for regular and detailed briefings of the congressional oversight group throughout the negotiations, access to documents relating to negotiations by members of the congressional oversight group, and their designated staffs. There would be very close cooperation between the congressional oversight group and the U.S. Trade Representative at all critical periods of the negotiations, including at negotiation sites, after the agreement is concluded, consultations regarding ongoing compliance and enforcement of commitments under the agreement, and finally, transmittal of a report by the Secretary of Commerce to Congress on U.S. strategy for correcting World Trade Organization dispute settlement reports that add to obligations or diminish rights of the United States. It also provides that the President provide Congress with a written notice of intent to enter negotiations 90 days before initiating negotiations, or as soon as feasible after enactment of trade promotion authority; for negotiations already underway, including the intended date for entering negotiations, specific U.S. objectives and statement of whether seeking new agreements or changes in the existing agreement; and that the President and the U.S. Trade Representative consult with Congress before initiating or continuing negotiations on agricultural products, fish and shellfish trade, textiles and apparel products. Before and after negotiations begin, the President and U.S. Trade Representative must consult with Congress regarding the negotiations, and particularly the U.S. Trade Representative must consult with all committees with jurisdiction over laws that would affect an agreement. Before and after negotiations begin, if a majority of the members of the Congressional Oversight Committee request a meeting, the President himself must meet with the group regarding the negotiations. I have used the word ``consult'' many times. It is all reflected in the legislation that Congress is very carefully guarding its constitutional power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, and we are having a contract with the President of the United States, but that contract is not a blank check to the President of the United States. He keeps in constant touch with us as the words ``consulting'' and ``consultation'' and ``consult'' imply, legally binding that he do that. So I hope it is very clear we are not willy-nilly delegating some power to the President. Not at all. We are going to be a part of this process. Now, people might ask why, if Congress is going to be a part of the process, are we having this contract with the President to negotiate for us? It is because of the impossibility, and it ought to be very obvious, 535 Members of Congress not having the ability to be in Geneva or someplace else negotiating with 142 other countries on the issue of some trade agreement. So we ask the President to do it. I hope the emphasis upon consulting and Congress demanding that the President sit down at certain points during this process indicates that, in fact, we are very selfishly guarding congressional responsibility. There is another part of notice and consultation that is required before actually entering into final trade agreements by the President, before it is actually signed in other words, because immediately after initiating an agreement the U.S. Trade Representative must consult closely with appropriate congressional committees, including the congressional trade advisers, the congressional oversight group, and the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture. The President is required, at least 90 days before entering an agreement, to formally notify Congress of his intent to enter into an agreement and publish notice of such intent in the Federal Register. At this time, the President must also notify the appropriate congressional committees of certain amendments proposed to be included in the implementing bill and then provide the International Trade Commission with details of the agreement so the ITC can prepare and submit an assessment of the likely impact of the agreement on the U.S. economy and specific industry sectors. Before entering into an agreement, the President must consult with the appropriate congressional committees and the congressional oversight group regarding three matters: The nature of the agreement; the extent to which the agreement meets congressional objectives as outlined in the bill before Congress right now; and the implementation of that agreement. Both Houses of Congress have the ability, in the final analysis, as we all know and as has been the practice for the last 25 years, to disapprove an agreement by passing separate disapproval resolutions if the administration fails or refuses to notify or consult with Congress in accordance with the bill that is before Congress right now that hopefully we will vote on tomorrow. Another example of notice and consultation after a trade agreement is entered into: After the President signs it, as soon as practical after entering into an agreement, the President must submit a copy of the agreement to Congress along with statements or reasons that he had for entering into that agreement. The President is required, at least 60 days after entering an agreement, to submit to Congress a description of the changes to existing laws that would be needed to comply with the agreement. The President is also required to submit to Congress the final text of the agreement and provide an explanation of how the bill implementing the agreement would change existing law, how the agreement makes progress at achieving the Trade Promotion Authority Act's objective, and also he must submit an implementation plan. When that is all done, we then have to have notice and consultation on an ongoing basis. The President must report to the appropriate congressional committees on the mechanisms created among parties in the agreement to promote respect for core labor standards and to develop and implement sound environmental and health standards. The President must also report on the required reviews of the impact of future trade agreements on the environment and U.S. employment. Congress may withdraw a trade promotion authority for failure to consult. Disapproval resolutions can be introduced by any Senator and may cover multiple agreements. Grounds for disapproval include failure to make progress in achieving the objectives that the bill has laid out. Obviously, as I have stated before, none of this happens unless Congress gives approval by majority vote in both the House and the Senate to approve or disapprove these agreements negotiated under this bill that hopefully will pass tomorrow. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, go ahead. I thank my friend, Senator Grassley, for helping us to work out this matter. As always, he is a gentleman and is accommodating. Again, we are very grateful for the effort he made to make this possible. I yield the floor.